i 

EC 

3 

!i< 

^ 

CO 

n4I 

s    e 

!acs 

1549 


TtBlFXjir 


to   the   argument    of  the 


I  ciiii 


Bhncght  before  the 

HON.  E.  P.  ALEXANDER 
Engineer  Arbitrator 


Filed  on  behalf  of  the  Costa  Rican 
Commission 


SAN  JOSE.— C.    R. 


Tip   Nacional, 

1897 


y^AAIh 


4 


?x 


I 


REPLT 


7" 


TO    THE    ARGUMENT    OF    THE 


to   the   argument    of  the 


Brought  before  the 

HON.  E.  P.  ALEXANDER 
Engineer  Arbitrator 


Filed  on  behalf  of  the  Costa  Rican. 
Commission 


SAN  JOSE.— C.    R. 

Tip   Nacional. 
1897 


->    '     t  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALirORNU 

n   /^    <^  SANTA  BARBARA 


Honorable    Edward    Porter   Alexander, 
Engineer  Arbitrator 

The  Costa  Rican  Boundary  Commission  has- 
duly  considered  and  carefully  pondered  the  allegation 
brought  before  you  by  the  Nicaraguan  Commission 
on  14th  inst,  and  in  accordance  with  what  was  agreed 
in  act  of  the  5th  of  this  month,  hereby  respectfully 
submits  the  answer  to  the  statements  and  inferences 
of  said  allegation. 

For  clearness'  sake  it  is  proper,  first:  to  formulate 
at  once, with  all  desirable  exactness  and  accuracy,  the 
conclusions  arrived  at  by  the  Nicaraguan  Commis- 
sion, and  secondly  the  confutation  of  each  and  eve- 
ry one  of  their  arguments. 

In  the  judgment  of  the  Costa  Rican  Commission, 
all  the  essence  of  the  Nicaraguan  allegation  may  be 
worded  in  the  following  terms. 

a)  The  river  "San  Juan  de  Nicaragua"  empties 
into  the  Caribbean  Sea  trough  three  different  outlets, 
streams  or  branches  which  are  named  "Colorado", 
"Taura"  and  "  the  one  branch  running  directly  into 
the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del  Norte",  all  of  the  said  three 
streams,  (not  one  of  them  only)  form  the  Rfo  de  San 
Juan. 


—  6  — 

b)  The  name  of  Rfo  de  San  Juan  has  never 
"  been  denied  either  to  the  Colorado   or  to  the  Taura 

streams.  The  said  three  streams  have  had,  and  ac" 
tually  have,  the  name  of  the  mother  stream  (San 
Juan)  from  which  they  proceed,  with  the  particular 
distinction  affixed  to  each  one  of  them  (Colorado, 
Taura). 

c)  The  Treaty  of  Limits  dated  15th  april  1858, 
does  not  exclusively  attach  the  name  of  Rio  San  Juan 
to  any  of  the  three  branches  which  proceed  from  the 
river  of  the  same  name;  it  mentionned  the  river  San 
Juan  in  a  general  sense,  as  the  frontier  line  and  did 
not  mention  particulary  any  of  the  streams,  nor  did 
said  Treaty  exclude  any  of  them;  consequently  Costa 
Rica  has  no  right  to  claim  for  the  location  of  the 
boundary  line,  the  branch  of  the  river  that  pours  its 
waters  into  the  bay  of  San  Juan  del  Norte. 

ch)  In  the  last  arbitration  Costa  Rica  maintai- 
ned that  the  frontier  line  ought  to  follow,  according 
to  the  Treaty  of  1858,  the  right  bank  of  the  stream 
emptying  directly  into  the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del  Nor- 
te, and  Nicaragua  on  their  behalf  objected  that  the 
frontier  was  deemed  to  be  the  right  border  of  the  Co- 
lorado river.  The  Minister  of  Nicaragua  in  Washing- 
ton mentioned  as  merely  tolerable  the  line  of  Harbour 
Head.  The  Arbitrator  President  Cleveland  decided 
the  dispute,  without  adhering  to  either  opinion;  the- 
reby it  is  to  be  reasonably  inferred  that  he  preferred 
the  branch  of  the  river  named  "Taura". 

d)  The  Taura  reaches  the  sea  in  the  territory 
of  Punta  de  Castilla,   and  being,  as  it  is,  the  same  ri- 


I 


ver  "San  Juan",  it  is  evident  that  its  right  bank  marks 
the  frontier  line. 

e)  The  point  where  the  right  margin  of  Taura 
reaches  the  sea,  is  precisely  the  same  that  the  Treaty 
of  1858  terms  "extremity  of  Punta  de  Castilla". 

f )  In  the  Treaty  of  Limits  it  was  declared 
what  constitutes  "Punta  de  Castilla";  it  is  necessary 
to  stick  to  that  declaration,  notwithstanding  any 
vulgar  opinions,  or  however  some  persons  or  even 
some  Geographers  may  designate  with  this  name  a 
different  point. 

g)  When  the  Legislator  or  the  contracting 
parties  define  the  terms  or  the  things  to  which  said 
terms  are  applied,  there  is  no  possibility  of  changing 
the  names  or  of  giving  the  words  a  different  interpre- 
tation. 

//)  The  interpretation  adopted  by  the  Nicara- 
guan  Commission  does  not  in  any  way  affect  the 
rights  of  Costa  Rica. 

/ )  The  Costa  Rica  Commission  opposes  to  the 
adoption  of  Taura,  without  explaining  the  grounds 
nor  offering  any  documents  that  may  sustain  their  re- 
fusal. 

j )     The  Costa  Rican  Commission  pretends  to 
draw   an   imaginary  line  starting  from  a  point  also 
imaginary;  this  is  a  capricious  line:  it  is  based  on  dis 
qualified  calculations,  and  refers  to  places  by  nature 
changeable  and  of  no  stabiHty. 

k)  The  "Punta  de  Castilla"  as  defined  by  the 
Treaty  of  boundaries  is  entirely  different  from  the 
^' Punta  de  Arenas",  to  which  it  has  been  lastly  pre- 


tended  to  apply  that  name.     Punta  de  Arenas  is  an 
imperceptible  place. 

I)  The  stipulation  in  the  Treaty  of  Limits  con- 
cerning the  exemption  of  custom  duties  in  Punta  de 
Castilla,  in  favour  of  Nicaragua,  would  be  absurd,  if 
it  would  refer  to  Puntarenas  or  to  some  other  place 
inside  the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del  Norte. 

II)  It  could  not  be  adopted  as  starting  point  of 
the  dividing  line,  the  place  designed  by  Costa  Rica, 
without  violating,  by  the  same  fact,  the  Treaty  of 
Limits. 

7n)  Should  the  place  designed  by  Costa  Rica 
be  adopted  as  starting  point,  it  would  cause  a  break 
of  continuity  on  the  dividing  line. 

n)  Nicaragua  has  the  eminent  domain  and 
supreme  control  over  the  waters  of  the  River  San 
Juan  de  Nicaragua  and  the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del 
Norte, 


Once  shown  the  light  in  which  the  Nicaraguan 
Commission  views  the  question,  it  comes  the  turn 
to  Costa-Rica  for  confuting  one  by  one  all  the  former 
propositions,  to  wit: 

{a) 

That  the  River  San  Juan  de  Nicaragua  empties 
into  the  sea  trough  three  branches,  arms  or  passages, 
named  Colorado,  Taura  and  the  "one  following  direc- 
tly to  the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del  Norte,"  is  an  uncon- 
trovertible fact,  and  whether  the  last  branch,  in 
reaching  the  Bay,  divides  in  two   streams,  as   it   was- 


—  9  — 

stated  in  the  allegation  of  Costa-Rica,  or  if  really  it 
is  three  the  streams  that  form  said  branch,  as  the 
commission  of  Nicaragua  maintains,  this  point  is  of 
very  little  bearing. 

Whether  there  are  three  branches  of  the  river,or  ra- 
ther five,  the  fact  remains  the  same;  that  each  one  of 
them  has  now  and  always  had  separate  existence,  and 
carryand  have  always  carried  a  separate  name,that  dis- 
tinguishes each  one  from  the  others,  without  giving 
room  for  confusion  of  any  kind. 

From  the  outlet  of  the  Lake  into  the  river  the  stream 
is  and  has  always  been  known  by  the  name  of  San 
Juan,  before  named  Desaguadero;  it  is  only  in  the 
lower  part  of  its  course  that  starts  the  branch  named 
Colorado;  but  the  main  stream,  not  for  this,  loses  its 
name,  and  it  has  not  occurred  to  any  body  the  idea  of 
namnig  San  Juan  what  is  only  a  derivation  of  the 
same;  the  river  advances  a  few  miles  more  towards 
the  sea,  and  a  new  derivation  appears  under  the  name 
Taura;  nevertheless  the  main  stream  keeps  its  name 
of  San  Juan  and  this  second  arm  of  the  river  is  dis- 
tinguished by  the  proper  name  that  it  has  had  from 
old  times,  without  it  having  occurred  to  any,  until  now, 
the  idea  of  attributing  to  the  unimportant  branch 
Taura,  the  name  of  the  main  stream,    San  Juan. 

To  start  from  a  different  basis,  the  unavoidable 
result  would  be  a  perfect  and  complete  confusion  of 
ideas,  because  if  Colorado  and  Taura  should  be  called 
Rio  San  Juan,  there  would  be  no  way  to  distinguish 
the  streams,  the  one  from  the  other  and  from  the 
original  one,except  by  affixing  to  each  one  of  them  the 
distinct  surname;  in  which    case  they  would   no  more 


TO 


"constitute  the  one  same  thing  known  under  identical 
denomination,  but  as  it  is  the  real  fact,  three  inde- 
pendent and  separate  streams  who  respond  to  the 
same  number  of  different  names. 

It  is  true  that  the  currents  of  Taura  and  Colo- 
rado proceed  from  River  San  Juan;  but  not  that  the 
two  named  currents  constitute  the  river  San  Juan;  to 
accept  that,  it  would  be  to  fall  back  into  the  refuted 
confusion;  for  it  would  be  the  same  as  to  say  that  the 
waters  derived  from  one  current  are  the  current 
itself  It  happens  with  the  rivers  something  similar 
to  what  happens  in  the  animal  kingdom;  in  spite  of 
the  intimate  connection  between  the  mother  and  the 
offspring  each  one, even  during  the  time  of  pregnancy, 
:has  and  maintains  his  own  individuality.  So  the  Co- 
lorado is  Colorado,  and  neither  Taura  nor  San  Juan; 
the  Taura  is  Taura  and  neither  San  Juan  nor  Colo- 
rado; and  the  San  Juan  is  San  Juan  and  neither  Colo- 
rado nor  Taura. 

This  assertion  of  direct  evidence  is  fully  and 
invariably  confirmed  by  all  the  maps  and  authors 
that  have  described  the  river  San  Juan  and  its  delta, 
before  and  after  the  date  of  the  Treaty  of  Limits; 
every  map  and  author  names  the  three  branches  of 
the  river  San  Juan,  with  the  proper  name  that  belongs 
to  each  one  of  them,  there  not  existing  any  maps  or 
.author  calling  the  Colorado  by  the  name  of  San  Juan, 
'Or  this  by  the  name  of  Colorado. 

The  logical  order  demands  one  proper  name  for 
-every  different  thing;  from  this  comes  the  difficulty 
into  which  the  Nicaraguan  Commission  have  placed 
themselves  when  they  reierred  to  the  river  San  Juan; 


1 1 


because  they  found  themselves  in  the  necessity  to 
consider  as  anonymous  the  branch  going  directly  to 
the  bay  and  properly  named  San  Juan.  See  lines  27 
and  the  following  on  the  page  5,  and  line  14  and  the 
following  on  the  page  10,  of  the  argument,  where  in 
speaking  of  said  branch,  its  proper  name  is  omitted 
and  it  is  distinguished  from  the  other  branches  by  the 
subtile  periphrases  the  branch  that  empties  into  the 
bay  called  San  Juan. 

This  branch  is  precisely  the  one  that  all  the  maps 
and  all  the  authors  call  Rio  San  Juan  de  Nicaraa^ua, 
which  name  is  a  substitute  fc)r  the  name  Desaguade- 
ro,  exactly  because  it  came  to  deposit  its  waters  in 
the  Bay  always  known  by  the  name  of  San  Juan, 
which  Bay  on  its  turn  got  its  name  from  the  vessel 
San  Juan,  one  of  those  belonging  to  the  renowned 
expedition  of  captains  Calero  and  Machuca,  who 
discovered  the  river  in  the  year  1539  (i). 

The  absurdity  of  giving  to  the  three  branches  of 
the  river  without  distinction,  the  name  of  the  princi- 
pal river  is  more  apparent,  when  the  need  comes  to 
select  one  of  them  as  basis  of  the  frontier  line  between 
the  two  countries;  because,  taking  for  granted  the 
identity,  that  is  hereby  denied,  it  would  result  that 
the  frontier  line  could  as  well  run  along  the  one  as 
the  other  branch;  and  said  frontier  line  would  con- 
sequently be  wanting  the  first  and  essential  condition 
that  a  boundary  line  needs;  that  is  to  say:  firmness, 
stability  and  individuality. 


(i)     See  HISTORIA  DE  COSTA  RICA   FOR  LE6N  FER- 
NANDEZ pages  61  to  70. 


12    

b) 

Never  has  the  name  of  San  Juan  been  given  to 
the  branches  pubHcly  known  as  Colorado  and  Taura. 
These  branches  have  always  been  known  by  their 
nomen  proprio.  Therefore  in  the  memoirs  written 
more  than  one  hundred  years  ago  by  the  Bishop  of 
Nicaragua,  Fray  Pedro  Agustin  Morel  de  Santa  Cruz, 
it  appears  perfectly  distinguished  the  three  branches 
of  the  river  San  Juan,  with  the  before  named  sepa- 
rate names. 

In  the  literary  work  entitled:  "  Derrotero  de  las 
Islas  Antillas,  de  las  Costas  de  Tierra  Firme  y  de  las 
del  Seno  Mexicano,  formado  en  la  Direccion  de  tra- 
bajos  Hidrograficos,"  reimpresa  en  Madrid,  Imprenta 
Nacional,  aiio  1820,"  one  vill  read  what  follows: 

"  This  port  San  Juan  is  formed  by  a  low  island 
which  makes  with  the  mainland  one  large  harbour. . 
...  . .  the  mouth  of  river  San  Juan  is  exactly  to  the 
South  ot  Punta  de  Arenas  a?id  through  it  (the  said 
mouth  of  the  river)  you  can  ascend  to  the  Lake  of  Nic- 
aragua". 

In  another  work  of  no  less  authority,  than  the 
one  just  quoted,  entitled  "  Remarks  on  the  Coast  of 
Nicaragua"  by  Sir.  William  S.  Wiseman,  Commander 
of  the  British  Ship  "Sophie,"  year  1820,  one  can  read 
in  page  177  what  follows: 

"  San  Juan  de  Nicaragua.  The  harbour  is 
formed  by  a  low  island  which  with  the  coast  encloses 
an  extensive  bay.  On  the  east  part,  the  island  is 
nearly  joined  to  the  mainland,  and  the  entrance  to 
the  harbour  is  on  the  west.     The  west  point  is  called 


—  13  — 

Arenas  Point,  which  is  situated  in  11°  north  latitude." 
'•  The  7nouth  of  the  river  San  Juan  is  exactly  on 
the  meridian  of,  or  true  South  from  the  Point  Atetias, 
and  by  it  there  is  a  communication  with  the  Lake  of 
Nicaragua.  From  the  harbour  of  San  Juan  de  Ni- 
caragua the  coast  tends  to  the  North  a  little  westerly, 
a  distance  of  80  leagues  to  cape  Gracias  a  Dios,  and 
is  what  is  properly  called  the  Mosquito  shore." 

Another  work  of  identical  merit  "  The  west 
India  Pilot"  by  Capitan  E.  Barnett  of  the  British 
Navy,  published  by  order  of  the  Lords  of  the  Admi- 
ralty, for  the  Hydrographical  Bureau  of  the  same, 
pages  227  to  270,  read  as  follows: 

'■'■Greytoiv7i  Ha^-bour  at  the  Nort-western  or  prin- 
cipal entrance  to  the  river  Sar.  Juan  de  Alcaragua,  lies 

within  a  low  sandy  peninsula" "River  San  Juan 

de  Nicaragua:"  This  so  called  river  is  the  channel  by 
which  the  waters  of  the  Lake  of  Nicaragua  are  con- 
veyed   to   the   Atlantic" "In    the   dry  season, 

however,  even  in  the  descent,  they  have  frequently 
to  disburden  at  Canon  island,    below   the  Colorado" 

"about  3  ^2  miles  from  the  mouth  the   Taura 

or  Jama  arm  branches  off  to  the  sea.  For  about  9 
miles  the  main  strean  runs  nearly  straight  in  a  south- 
erly direction,  when  it  forms  a  sharp  turn   and   takes 

its   general   westerly   course" "about   9  miles, 

above  the  bend  another  much  larger,  deeper  and 
more  rapid  branch,  called  the  Colorado,  threads  its 
way  to  the  sea  and  with  the  Taura  carries  off  so  large 
a  portion  of  the  7nain  stream,  that  it  has  not  sufficient 
power  to  convey  to  the  sea   the    debris    thrown  into 


—  14  — 

the  lower  part,  which  is  consequently  becoming 
much  shallower." 

Though  it  may  seem  excessive,  two  more  quota- 
tions will  be  made,  in  support  of  the  preceding  ones. 

The  "Gate  of  the  Pacific"  by  Commander  Bed- 
ford Pim  of  the  British  Navy,  London  1863,  pages 
245  and  the  following  read  thus:  The  Colorado 
diverges  from  the  San  Jiian  in  latitude  10°  50'  N., 
and  after  runing  in  a  south  westerly  direction  falls  in 
to  the  sea  in  latitude  10°  46'  N.,  forming  a  dangerous 
bar.  This  river  abstracts  from  the  viain  stream  a 
considerable  quantity  of  water ....  The  7nain  current 
being  thus  suddenly  weakened,  the  motion  of  the 
water  through  the  San  Juan  becomes  sluggish." 

Finally,  in  "Nicaragua,  its  people,  scenery,  mo- 
numents resources,  condition  and  proposed  Canal"by 
G.  Squire,  New  York,  i860,  page  646  reads  thus: 
Like  the  Atrato,  the  San  Juan  River  has  formed 
a  delta  at  its  mouth,  through  which  it  flows  for 
eighteen  miles,  reaching  the  sea  through  several 
channels.  The  largest  of  these  is  the  Colorado  Chan- 
nel, wich  opens  directly  into  the  ocean,  the  next  in 
size  is  that  wich  bears  the  name  of  the  river  and  flozvs 
into  the  harbour  of  San  Juan.  Between  the  two 
is    a  smaller  one  called  Tauro" 

The  Costa-Rican  Commission  is  fully  confident 
that  in  view  of  the  above  quotations  the  Nicaraguan 
Commission  will  no  longer  pretend  that  the  branch 
Taura  is  the  San  Juan  River  contemplated  by  the 
Treaty  of  1858, 

The  transcription  of  the  words  of  the  Nicaraguan 
Minister  in  Washington,  in  the  reply  brought   before 


—  15  — 

the  Arbitrator  President  Cleveland,  will  more  fully 
disclose  the  unreasonableness  of  the  pretension  of 
Nicaragua. 

The  Minister  wrote:  "Long  antecedent  to  the 
Treaty  of  1858  the  river  San  Juan  had  established 
itself  in  three  streams  through  the  delta  to  the  sea, 
namely:  the  San  Juan  Proper  ivhich  enters  the  bay  or 
harbour  of  Grey  town;  the  Taura  which  branches  off  to 
the  South  six  miles  above  Greytown  and  the  Colorado' 
which  also  branches  off  to  the  South  eighteen  miles 
above  Greytown  and  enters  the  sea  about  the  same 
distance  South  of  the  port.  The  Taura  is  an  unim- 
portant stream  the  mouth  being  invariably  closed  in  the 
dry  season.  The  Colorado  ever  since  i860,  has  been 
the  main  stream.  In  that  year  the  waters  were  diver- 
ted from  the  SAN  JUAN  PROPER  into  the  Colo- 
rado, and  now  by  for  the  greatest  part  of  the  year  the 
water  of  the  PARENT  STREAM  finds  its  outlet 
through  that  river.  In  the  height  of  dry  season  at  least 
twenty  times  as  much  water  goes  to  he  sea  by  way  of 
the  Colorado  as  by  the  SAN  JUAN  PROPER. 


c) 


The  Nicaraguan  Commission  states  that  the 
Treaty  of  Limits  does  not  give  the  name  of  San  Juan 
to  any  of  the  three  branches  emanating  from  the 
river  of  the  same  name;  this  is  an  error  of  very  easy 
dispelling. 

Article  2nd  of  the  Treaty  declares  that  the 
dividing  line  between  the  two  Republics  will  start  in 
the  extremity  of  Punta  de  Castilla,  on    the  mouth  of 


—   i6  — 

the  river  San  Juan  de  Nicaragua,  and  will  follow   the 
right  margin  of  said  river. 

Article  4th  states  that  the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del 
Norte  will  belong  to  both  Republics,  and  consequen- 
tly, both  will  jointly  enjoy  of  its  advantages  and  con- 
tribute to  its  defense.  The  same  article  4th  further 
states;  Costa- Rica  is  also  bound,  as  far  as  the  portion 
of  the  banks  of  the  San  Juan  River  which  correspond 
to  it  is  concerned,  to  contribute  to  its  custody  with  all 
the  efficiency  within  her  reach. 

Article  6th  confers  upon  Costa  Rica  the  perpe- 
tual rights  of  free  navigation  over  the  river  San  Juan, 
from  its  mouth  up  to  three  English  miles  before 
reaching  the  Castillo  Viejo. 

Lastly,  Article  9th  rules  that  by  no  reason,  even 
in  the  event  that  the  Republics  of  Costa  Rica  and 
Nicaragua  would  unfortunately  be  in  a  state  of  war, 
will  be  allowed  to  any  of  them  to  exert  any  act  of 
hostility  towards  or  against  the  other  neither  in  the 
bay  of  San  Juan  del  Norte,  neither  in  the  river  of  this 
name,  nor  in  the  Lake  of  Nicaragua. 

After  what  has  been  stated  and  in  view  of  these 
articles,  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  doubt  or  remain  in 
perplexity  about  which  one  of  the  branches  of  the 
river  was  intented  to  mention  and  did  really  mention 
the  Treaty  of  Limits;  it  is  set  forth  in  glaring  light 
that  the  Treaty  did  not  refer  but  to  the  original 
branch,  to  the  Saji  Juan  proper,  as  the  Minister  of 
Nicaragua  in  Washington  wrote  in  his  reply  before 
mentioned;  to  the  same  San  Juan,  recently  forced 
away  from  the  power  of  the  adventurer  Walker  by 
the  valor  of  a  column  of  the  Costa  Rican  Army,whose 


fleet  consisted  in  rafts  coarsely  tied  together  with 
wooden  strings;  to  the  same  river  that,  on  the  date  of 
the  Treaty,  was  under  the  inminent  threat  of  being 
mastered  again  by  the  hords  of  fiUbusters  which  de- 
clared it  an  absolute  necessary  base  for  the  execution 
of  their  vast  schemes   of  conquest  and  usurpation. 

The  Treaty  speaks  evidently  of  that  branch  o^ 
the  river  that  empties  into  the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del 
Norte,  Avhere  it  was  recognized  In  Hivour  of  Costa 
Rica  the  common  sovereignty;  because  such  recog- 
nition would  have  lacked  of  meaning  and  common 
sense  if  the  San  Juan  of  the  frontier,  the  one  over 
which  Costa  Rica  can  navigate, -say  the  Taura-would 
be  apart  and  disconnected  from  the  Bay,  and  for  the 
same  reason  defenseless  and  impossible  to  be  defen- 
ded. 

Between  the  Bay  of  San  Juan  and  the  Costa 
Rica  river  line  there  cannot  be  any  break  of  conti- 
nuity; the  Bay  serves  as  basis  for  defending  the  river, 
and  this  on  its  turn,  serves  to  assist  in  the  defense  of 
the  Bay,  all  by  means  of  navigation  in  either  waters, 
what  would  be  impossible  in  the  Taura,  which  branch, 
as  very  properly  said  by  the  Minister  of  Nicaragua  in 
Washington,  carries  a  current  of  no  importance,  and 
zohich  invariably  lacks  of  exit  to  the  sea  during  the 
dry  season.  The  stipulation  in  article  g  has  made 
more  tangible  the  error,  that  the  commi.ssion  of  Nica- 
ragua supports,  because  said  stipulation  should  be 
laughable,  if  it  was  to  be  referred  to  theTaura  current, 
for  instance,  which  never  has  been  navigated  and 
does  not  conduct  to  any  port,  but  i)re.sent  an  inhospi- 

2 


—   i8  — 

table  coast,  is  part  of  the  year  converted  into  & 
stagnant  swamp,  without  outlet  and,  finally,  is  of  no- 
importance. 

In  a  communication  directed  by  the  Minister  of 
Foreign  Affairs  for  Nicaragua  to  the  Government  of 
Costa  Rica  under  date  of  September  5th  i860,  the 
following  expression  is  found: 

"Realized  the  invasion  of  Central  America  by 
William  Walker,  as  the  Government  of  your  Exce- 
lency  will  be  aware  of,  and  not  being  remote  that 
said  bandit  intend  some  action  through  the  river  San 
Juan  del  Norte,  my  Government  has  taken  steps  to 
protect  that  frontier,  and  has  ordered  the  reinforce- 
ment of  the  military  stations.  But  as,  in  accordance 
with  the  Treaty  15th  Abril  1858,  clause  4th,  this  and. 
your  Republic  must  provide  together  to  the  defense 
of  that  line,  my  Government  expects  that  yours,  in 
view  of  the  impending  dangers,  will  take  his  share  in 
such  sacred  and  important  duty  moving  a  portion  of 
your  army,  enough  to  protect  the  frontier  and  draw 
back  the  enemy,  should  the  invasion  be  effected 
through  that  region," 

This  document  constitutes  once  more  an  irrefu- 
table proof,  that  the  San  Juan  of  the  Treaty  of  1858, 
is  the  same  river  that  once  was  keeled  by  the  stea- 
mers of  the  audacious  filibuster. 

There  is  another  indisputable  proof  for  that  the 
branch  of  the  river  San  Juan  that  empties  into  the 
Bay  of  San  Jilan  del  Norte  is  the  Rio  de  San  Juan  to 
which  the  Treaty  of  Limits  of  1858  and  the  award 
of  1888  refer.  Said  proof  is  found  in  the  text  of 
Article  2nd  of  the   Treaty  signed  by  the  Plenipoten- 


—   19  — 

tiaries  of  Costa  Rica  and  Nicaragua,  Doctor  don- 
Jose  M"  Castro  and  don  Benjamin  Guerra,  m  the 
city  of  Managua,  on  the  23rd  December,  1890.  It 
says  iis  follows:  "The  commissioners  of  the  Govern- 
ments of  Costa  Rica  and  Nicaragua  to  establish  the 
material  demarcation  of  the  dividing  line  between  the 
two  Republics,  in  accordance  to  the  Agreement  in 
the  Treaty  of  15th  of  April  1858,  and  to  the  pact  of 
Arbitration  signed  in  the  city  of  Guatemala  on  the 
24th  of  December  1886,  will  proceed  to  effect  said 
demarcation  on  the  Atlantic  coast  by  drawing  a 
straight  line  which  starts  from  a  point  on  the  sea  side 
coast,  200  meters  distant  east  of  the  breakwater  that 
the  Canal  Company  is  actually  constructing,  and 
terminates  in  the  extremity  and  over  the  right  margin 
of  the  current  of  river  San  Juan  which  is  found  to  be 
the  nearest." 

"From  this  point,  it  is  to  be  followed  over  the 
same  current  until  meeting  the  right  margin  of  the 
stream  "Animas"  and  the  stream  of  Rio  San  Juan, 
the  line  continuing  over  this  until  reaching  the  point 
that  is  marked  out  in  the  Treaty  of  1858." 

"The  200  meters,  mentioned  in  part  first  of  this 
article  will  be  measured  over  the  coast,  as  it  may  be 
on  the  date  when  the  material  demarcation  of  the 
Territories  may  begin,  and  in  such  a  manner  that  the 
line  which  determines  the  said  200  meters,  forms  a 
right  angle  with  the  breakwater." 

"The  Commissioners  will  fix  the  starting  point 
on  the  sea  side  coast  by   means   of  coordinate  lines." 

The  declaration  contained  in  the  inserted  text 
is  of  such  a  force  as  to  make  all  commentation  useless; . 


20 


it  distinctly  says  that  the  starting  point  for  the  line 
ought  to  be  looked  for  in  the  territory  that  incloses 
the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del  Norte,  let  it  be  called  Punta 
de  Arenas,  Punta  de  Castilla  or  by  any  other  name, 
and  it  further  declares  that  the  branch  of  the  river 
that  empties  into  the  Bay  is  the  very  same  San  Juan 
of  the  Treaty  of  1858. 

And  said  declaration  is  vested  with  still  greater 
force,  if  attention  is  paid  to  the  fact  that  the  conven- 
tion Castro-Guerra  was  not  realized  under  the  isola- 
ted responsibility  of  the  Diplomate  who  signed  it;  but 
said  convention  vas  approved  by  the  Executive  Power 
and  ratified  in  due  form  by  the  Legislative  Power  of 
Nicaragua. 

If  said  Treaty  did  not  come  to  perfection  it  was 
only  because  the  Government  of  Costa  Rica,  anxious 
not  to  take  any  substance  from  the  award  of  Mr. 
Cleveland,  denied  her  approval. 

ch) 

The  Nicaraguan  Commission  affirms  that  in  the 
last  arbitration,  Costa  Rica  maintained  that  the  frontier 
line  ought  to  follow,  in  conformity  to  the  Treaty  of 
1858,  the  right  margin  of  the  current  that  empties  di- 
rectly into  the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del  Norte.  This  is 
positive,  whith  the  addition  that  the  starting  point 
for  the  dividing  line  is  the  extremity  of  Puuta  de 
Castilla. 

The  Nicaraguan  Commission  further  states  that 
Nicaragua  on  her  behalf  asked  to  be  declared  that  the 
frontier  was  constituted  by   the   right   margin  of  Rio 


21    — 

Colorado.  This  is  true  and  not  true,  because  Nica- 
ragua proposed  and  defended  two  different  lines:  the 
one  of  Colorado,  and  tlie  one  of  Harbour  Head. 
She  did  not  succeed  in  obtaining  any  of  them. 

As  to  the  Colorado  line,  Nicaragua  asked:  "In 
view  of  article  5  of  the  Treaty,  must  the  branch  of 
the  San  Juan  called  the  Colorado  river  be  held  as  the 
limit  between  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica? 

To  this  question  the  arbitrator  answered  as  fo- 
llows: "The  branch  of  the  river  San  Juan,  known  as 
the  Colorado  River  must  not  be  considered  as  the 
boundary  between  the  Republics  of  Costa  Rica  and 
Nicaragua  in  any  part  of  its  course." 

In  regard  to  the  other  line  Nicaragua  stated  as 
follows:  The  boundary  was  to  follow  the  river  San  Juan 
till  it  reached  the  sea;  consequently  at  the  time  of  the 
Treaty  the  line  would  follow  the  Southern  shore  of 
that  part  of  the  harbour  known  as  Harbour  Head  to 
a  jDoint  A,  and  thence  according  to  the  pretensions 
of  Costa  Rica  along  this  tongue  of  shifting  sand, 
Punta  de  Castilla,  to  the  extremity  of  the  tongue". . . 
since  the  tongue  or  rnole  of  sand  effected  a  junction 
with  the  main  land  at  B  the  watters  of  the  river  have 
entered  the  sea  at  any  and  every  place  where  they 
could  most  easily  break  through  along  the  whole 
length  of  this  Punta  de  Castilla,  from  the  main  land 
at  A  to  the  main  land  at  B,  and  in  the  wet  season 
there  are  frequently  two  or  three  places  open  at  on- 
ce       The  coficlusio7i  is  that  the  starting  point  for 

the  boimdary  line  on  the  Atlantic  is  the  poitit  of  the 
main  land  marked  A  on  the  plan. 

By  looking  at  the  map  it  is  evident  that  Nicara- 


22 

gua  pretended  before  the  Arbitrator,  in  case  she  lost 
the  Colorado  line,  to  have  this  other  one  to  start 
from  the  sea,  from  the  point  where  the  main  land 
joins  the  tongue  of  sand  sometimes  called  Punta  Are- 
nas and  at  other  times  Punta  de  Castilla,  and  the- 
reafter to  continue  the  frontier  hne  along  the  shore  of 
the  Harbour  Head. 

In  pretending  this  line  Nicaragua  alleged  that 
it  was  impossible  to  ascertain  the  exact  situation  of 
the  extremity  of  Punta  de  Castilla,  because  the  sand 
tongue  known  by  this  name  was  movable,  that  the 
river  had  changed  and  changes  frequently  and  ca- 
priciously its  course;  Nicaragua  finally  brought  as  ma- 
ny arguments  as  she  thought  convenient,  to  carry 
the  starting  point  for  the  dividing  line  to  Harbour 
Head. 

The  Arbitrator  declared  as  follows:  The  boun- 
dary line  between  the  Republics  of  Costa  Rica  and 
Nicaragua  on  the  Atlantic  side  begins  at  the  extre- 
mity of  Punta  de  Castilla  at  the  mouth  of  the  San 
Juan  de  Nicaragua  river,  as  they  both  existed  on  the 
15th  day  of  April  1858." 

Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  the  rejection  by  the 
Arbitrator  of  both  pretensions  of  Nicaragua.  He  ru-. 
led  the  case  in  entire  conformity  with  the  allegation 
and  claim  of  Costa  Rica,  who  had  maintained  that 
the  extremity  of  Punta  de  Castilla  was  a  geographical 
point  to  be  easily  determined  by  the  location  of  the 
longitude  and  latitude  that  it  had  on  the  15th  April 
1858;  that  this  geographical  point  was  stationary  and 
not  movable  as  the  waters;  that  the  changes  that  ha- 
ve taken  place  in  the  Bay  of  San  Juan  and  in  the  Ri- 


ver,  could  not  produce  a  corresponding  change  in 
the  location  of  the  extremity  of  Punta  de  Castilla, 
and  so  forth. 

Pretending  therefore,  as  the  Commission  of  Ni- 
caragua does,  that  the  Arbitrator  in  the  same  manner 
disapproved  of  the  extreme  pretensions  of  Nicaragua 
and  Costa  Rica,  is  to  revolt  against  all  the  antece- 
dents in  the  case,  which  consist  in  unimpeachable  do- 
cuments, that  have  the  force  of  a  judgment. 

To  aggregate  further,  that  the  Arbitrator  prefe- 
rred the  line  of  the  stream  Taura  to  indicate  the 
boundary  between  Costa  Rica  and  Nicaragua,  is  a 
wonderful  assertion,  and  to  such  a  point  destitute  even 
of  the  shghtest  appearance  of  truth,  that  it  is  really 
sorrowful  to  be  in  need  of  confuting  it. 

If  the  Arbitrator  did  not  select  the  line  of  Har- 
bour Head,  with  which  Nicaragua  would  have  been 
pleased,  as  it  has  been  demonstrated  with  the  be- 
fore quoted  words  of  her  Minister  how  can  it  be  sup- 
posed, that  the  Arbitrator  granted  more,  by  carrying 
the  dividing  line  as  far  as  Taura,  situated  many  mi- 
les southeast  of  Harbour  Head,  what  constitutes  the 
actual  pretension  of  the  Nicaraguan  Commission. 

The  Arbitrator  was  fully  informed  about  the 
conditions  of  the  delta  of  the  San  Juan,  information 
having  been  obtained  from  different  sources,  but  mo- 
re especially  from  the  description  of  the  place  made 
in  the  allegation  of  the  Minister  of  Nicaragua,  and 
there  is  no  reason  whatever  to  infer,  that  the  Arbitra- 
tor would  have  lacked  the  necessary  words  to  express 
his  thought  in  the  award;  had  he  wanted  to  refer  to 
the  Taura  .branch   in  his  judmeiit,  as  tlie  said:  "The 


—    24   — 

branch  of  the  river  San  Juan  known  as  the  Colorado 
River  must  not  be  considered  as  the  boundary,  &,&". 
he  could  have  writen  if  this  was  his  intention  "The 
branch  of  the  river  San  Juan  known  as  the  Taura 
River  must  be  considered  as  the  boundary,  &,  &." 
From  what  has  been  said  any  body  can  see  that  the 
Nicaraguan  interpretation  of  the  award  is  absolutely 
groundless. 

d) 

That  the  branch  of  the  San  Juan,  named  Taura, 
reaches  the  sea  in  the  territory  of  Castilla,  or  better 
said  simply  "Castilla,"  is  a  fact.  By  Castilla  it  is  un- 
derstood the  whole  of  the  delta,  from  the  mouth  of 
the  San  Juan  River  to  the  mouth  of  Colorado;  but 
the  admitted  circumstance  that  the  Taura  has  its 
mouth  in  the  territory  of  Castilla,  cannot  logically 
authorize  the  deduction,  that  the  Taura  is  the  San 
Juan  of  the  Treaty  of  Limits. 

In  view  of  offering  a  graphical  demonstration,  let 
C  represent  the  eastern  extremity  of  the  coast  line  at 
the  mouth  of  Colorado:  let  E  be  the  western  end  of 
the  same  line,  and  let  T  be  the  mouth  of  Taura. 

E T C 


The  following  are  :he  requirements  for  the  de- 
marcation of  the  starting  point  of  the  dividing  line, 
to  wit: 

I  St.  That  this  point  be  situated  at  the  mouth 
that  the  river  San  Juan  had  on  1858. 

2nd.  That  it  be  one  of  the  extremities  of  Punta 
de  Castilla,  and 


—  25  — 

3rd.     That  it  be  not  the  mouth  of  Colorado. 

The  point  T  does  not  meet  the  first  requirement, 
because  it  has  been  demonstrated  that  the  mouth  of 
the  San  Juan  never  was  at  T:  said  mouth  was  always 
situated  in  the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del  Norte,  and  the 
point  T  is  outside  of  it. 

It  does  not  meet  either  the  second  requi- 
rement, because  the  starting  point  of  the  dividing 
line  must  be  one  of  the  extremities  of  Punta  de  Cas- 
tilla,  and  the  point  T  is  decidedly  at  a  great  distance 
from  both  ends;  and  as  per  requirement  3rd.  the  ex- 
tremity of  Colorado  is  not  the  starting  point,  this 
cannot  be  anywhere  else  but  at  E,  which  is  the  lo- 
cality indicated  in  the  award  as  being  the  extremity 
of  Punta  de  Castilla. 

In  fewer  words:  if  the  extremity  of  Colorado  is 
not  the  starting  point  of  the  dividing  line,  said  point 
umst  necessarily  and  unavoidably  be  the  other  extre- 
mity of  Punta  de  Castilla.  Otherwise,  the  middle  of  a 
straight  line  would  be  identical  with  the  ends  of  the 
same.  Such  a  striking  absurdity  is  scarcely  worth 
mentioning. 


Numerous  historical  documents  demonstrate  sa- 
tisfactorily where  existed  the  famous  Punta  de  Cas- 
tilla on  1858  and  even  before.  A  paragraph  of  a 
letter  from  Captain  Mc.  Cerran,  dated  3rd.  March, 
1853,  reads  thus:  "Punta  Arenas,  the  place  from  whe- 
re I  address  you,  is  situated  opposite  to  San  Juan  del 
Norte,  or  Greytown,  and  has  been  occupied  by  the 
accesory  Transit  Company   of  Nicaragua  as  a  depot 


26    — 

■or  general  agCR-cy,  since  the  commencement  of  the 
■Company's. going  into  operation."     (i) 

In  a 'note  addressed  by  Mr.  Marcy,  Secretary  of 
State  of  the  United  States  to  Mr.  IngersoU,  Minister 
of  the  United  States  to  Great  Britain,  dated  9th  Ju- 
ne 1853,  transcribed  by  Mr.  IngersoU  to  Lord  Claren- 
don, the  following  paragraph  is  to  be  read:  "It  is 
not  probable  that  any  attempt  will  be  made  to  claim 
for  the  people  of  San  Juan  (Greytown)  any  authority 
over  Puntarenas Piiidarenas,  it  will  be  recollec- 
ted, is  on  the  southern  bank  of  the  river  Sa7i  Jican."  (2) 

In  a  note  of  Lord  Clarendon  to  Mr.  Crampton 
Minister  of  Great  Britain  in  Washington,  dated  22nd 
July,  1853,  there  is  a  paragraph  reading  thus:  "Now 
that  Government  (the  Government  of  Nicaragua)  clai- 
med a  right  to  the  istJnnus  called  Puntarenas  over 
against  Greytown  on  the  other  side  of  the  river  San 
Juan,  to  the  effect  that  the  Company  desired  the  use 
of  a  portion  of  the  land  on  the  otter  side  of  the  Har- 
bour, near  Puntarenas."  (3) 

In  another  note  addresed  by  Mr.  Fabens,  com- 
mercial Agent  of  the  United  States  to  Secretary  Mr. 
Marcy,  dated  i6th  May  1854,  the  following  lines  can 
be  read:  "The  ground  taken  by  the  Company  in  this 
matter  was,  that  the  territory  wich  they  occupied, 
known  as  Point  Arenas,  was  held  by  them  by  virtue 
of  their  charter  from  Nicaragua,  and  was  a  portion 
of  that   state;   that    their   steamships    did   not  come 


(i)  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers, Vol.  42,  page  213. 
(2)  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol  42,  page  230. 
,(3)        id.        id.        ad.        id.        id.        Vol  42,     id.  234. 


—    27    — 

within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Municipal  authorities  of 
San  Juan  del  Norte,  and  were  consequently  not  to 
be  held  liable  for  any  port  charges  levied  by  the  au- 
thorities of  that  town." 

The  point  of  contention  between  the  parties  is, 
as  will  be  seen,  the  right  of  jurisdiction  on  the  part  of 
the  municipal  authorities  of  San  Juan  del  Norte  over 

Point  Arefias I  have  brought    this   matter  to 

your  notice  because  I  believe  that  until  affairs  are 
arranged  between  the  Nicaragua  Transit  Company 
and  the  town  of  San  Juan  del  Norte,  or  until  the 
question  of  sovereignty  over  this  town  and  the  terri- 
tory of  Puntarenas  is  settled,  there  can  be  no  perma- 
nent tranquillity  or  wellbeing  on  either  side  (i) 

In  a  communication  addresed  by  Mr.  Borland, 
Minister  of  the  United  States  in  Central  America  to 
the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  under 
date  30th  May,  1854,  there  is  the  following  para- 
graph :  "  So  of  the  place  where  his  arrest  was  attemp- 
ted, Puntarenas,  on  the  South  bank  of  the  San  Juan 
River,  and  the  opposite  side  of  the  bay  from  San  Juan 
or  Greytown ....  and  the  place  of  this  attempted 
arrest,  Puntarenas,  is  territory  in  dispute  bet^veen  Ni- 
-caragua  and  Costa  Rica.'"  (2) 

Lord  Napier  wrote  to  Lord  Malmesbury,  under 
date  17th  September  1858,  the  following  paragraph: 
"  He  said  that  COsta  Rica  had  no  pretension  to 
Greytown....  I  answered  that  she  had  pretensions 
to  Puntarenas,  the  opposite  side   of  the  river,    and  that 


(i)     British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Vol.  46,  pages  859  y  860. 
(2)        48,  page  867. 


—    28   — 

as  there  has  been  so  much  dispute  about  the  frontier 
of  the  two  countries,  it  was  thought  desirable  to  draw 
in  Costa  Rica  as  a  party  to  the  settlement,  and  thus 
avoid  future  misunderstandings."  (i) 

It  seems  unnecessary  to  quote  any  more  docu- 
ments as  proof  of  a  palpable  fact,  which,  until  now, 
nobody  had  neither  ignored  nor  disavowed. 

The  demonstration  of  that  Puntarenas  is  Punta 
de  Castilla,  will  be  found  in  another  place  of  this 
reply. 

The  Nicaraguan  Commission  has  paid  no  atten- 
tion to  the  existing  maps  of  the  port  and  bay  of  San 
Juan  del  Norte  and  of  the  river  San  Juan  de  Nica- 
ragua. It  only  offers  as  a  proof  a  Map  of  1854,  the 
original  of  which,  it  says,  is  kept  in  the  English 
Admiralty. 

The  Costa  Rica  Commission  noticed  that  the  site 
designed  in  the  said  Map  to  be  the  extremity  of  Pun- 
ta de  Castilla  was  not  in  accordance  with  all  the  con- 
temporary plans  and  Maps  of  the  same  locality,  and 
further  noticed  that  the  map  exhibited  by  the  Nica- 
raguan Commission  is  not  to  be  considered  as  a  re- 
gular map  :  it  consists  of  an  informal  copy,  made  by 
hand  and  without  any  signature,  that  may  confer 
upon  it  any  authority.  In  view  of  this  circumstance 
Costa  Rica  cabled  on  the  subject  and  through  her 
Legation  in  London  has  obtamed  fron  the  British 
Admiralty,  the  information,  that  the  author  of  the 
map  in  question  is  Mr.  Richard  Owen,  commander  of 
Her  British  Magesty's  war-ship  TJuindei^  and  that  the 


(i)     British  and  foregin  States  Paper,  vol.  46,  page  703. 


—    29    — 

date  of  the  said  map  is  the  year  1834.  Meanwhile 
the  Costa  Rican  Commission  _^can  exhibit  the  aut- 
henticated copy  of  that  Map  (which  is  ah'eady  on 
the  way),  she  denies  any  credit  to  the  copy  of  Nica- 
ragua, because  it  is  not  signed  by  any  authority,  and 
because  the  date  quoted  is  at  variance  with  the  ori- 
ginal map  in  the  archives  of  the  British  Admiralty, 

/) 

The  Nicaraguan  Commission  states  that  it  is 
declared  in  the  Treaty  of  Limits  what  constitutes 
Punta  de  Castilla,  and  that  it  is  necessary  to  stick  to 
that  declaration. 

The  Treaty  of  Limits  speaks  of  Punta  de  Cas- 
tilla in  two  places.  Article  2nd  reads:  "  ...the 
dividing  line ....  starting  from  the  North  sea  it  will 
commence  in  the  extremity  of  Punta  de  Castilla,  it 
will  be  of  use  and  ownership  entirely  in  common, 
equal  for  Costa  Rica  and  Nicaragua,  designating,  as 
long  as  this  community  lasts,  as  limit  of  it,  all  the 
course  of  the  Colorado  river. 

The  pronoun  it  contained  in  the  phrase  as  limit 
of  it,  evidently  substitutes  the  nearer  substantive  co7n- 
fnunity.  This  remark  made,  it  falls  flat  to  the  ground 
the  interpretation  of  the  Nicaraguan  Commission, 
according  to  wich,  Punta  de  Castilla  reaches  as  far 
as  Colorado. 

But  even  in  the  case  that  said  remark  would  be 
omitted  and  the  allowance  made  that  the  pronoun  it 
substitutes  the  farther  substantive  Punta  de  Castilla, 
it  is  distinctly  perceivable  that  what  was  agreed  on  in 


?o 


Article  5th  was  merely  of  transitory  merit,  conven- 
tionally intended  to  exist  only  during  the  agreed  com- 
munity; said  agreement  was  neither  of  a  permanent 
character  nor  was  the  expression  of  a  real  and  lasting 
fact.  The  Colorado  was  Punta  de  Castilla  ojily  du- 
ring the  short  time  in  which  the  provisional  regime  of 
the  agreed  community  was  vital.  It  was  only  for 
certain  purposes  and  for  a  short  length  of  time  that 
the  territory  called  Punta  de  Castilla  was  conventio- 
nally extended  to  Colorado.  It  is  not  possible  to 
draw  from  this  exceptional  case  a  general  conse- 
quence. Colorado  was  Punta  de  Castilla  for  a  cer- 
tain object  and  for  a  short  period;  but  not  for  all 
purposes  nor  forever. 

It  would  be  irrational  to  believe  that  the  star- 
ting point  of  the  dividing  line  could  be  the  whole  of 
the  territory  of  Punta  de  Castilla;  and  whereas  said 
starting  point  must  be  at  the  extremity  of  Punta  de 
Castilla,  in  the  mouth  of  the  San  Juan  river  it  is  of  no 
bearing  to  assert  that  the  same  territory  reaches  the 
Colorado,  even  under  the  supposition  that  this  was 
a  plain  truth:  the  starting  point  is  to  be  the  extremity 
of  Punta  de  Castilla  at  the  mouth  of  the  San  Juan, 
and  no  other  place  of  said  territory. 

Whether  or  not  the  territory  of  Punta  de  Castilla 
reaches  to  Colorado,  it  is  positively  certain  and  an 
irresistible  fact,  that  the  extremity  of  the  territory 
tangent  to  the  outlet  of  San  Juan  is  the  starting  point 
for  the  divisory  line  :  all  the  rest  is  of  little  or  no  im- 
portance. 


\ 


—  31  — 
g) 

When  the  legislator  or  the  parties  define  the 
words  or  matters  to  which  they  refer,  there  ought  not 
to  be  given  another  and  different  meaning  to  these 
words  and  matters. 

This  is  what  the  Nicaraguan  Commission  says, 
and  in  this  they  concur  in  the  same  opinion  as  the 
Costa  Rican  Commission.  The  point,  in  which  they 
do  not  agree,  is  in  the  application  of  the  rule  for  in- 
terpretation, which  Nicaragua  wants  to  apply.  In 
the  first  place  the  Treaty  did  not  define  the  Punta  de 
Castilla  but  as  a  determined  object  or  point,  and  it  is. 
not  permitted  to  extend  this  definition  to  other  out- 
side objects;  and  in  the  second  place  the  Treaty  did 
define  the  exact  conditions  for  the  starting  point  of 
the  divisory  line  in  the  following  words  "  the  extre- 
mity of  Punta  de  Castilla  in  the  outlet  of  the  river 
San  Juan  de  Nicaragua"  It  is  therefore  not  permis- 
sive to  cancel  the  clear  meaning'  of  these  words  with 
the  object  to  seek  the  starting  point  for  said  line, 
in  the  region  or  course  of  Colorado,  or  Taura  or  any 
other  stream,  that  is  not  the  stream  San  Juan  in  its 
outlet. 

The  safest  and  most  sure  law  of  interpretation 
is  found  in  the  respect  paid  to  the  text  of  the  stipula- 
tions when  their  sense,  after  being  unequivocal,  is 
and  has  been  the  matter  of  a  solemn  confirmatory 
proclamation.  Such  is  the  case  with  the  article  2nd 
of  the  Treaty  of  1858,,  explained  by  the  Award  of 
22nd  March  1888. 


The  Nicaraguan  Commission  maintains  that  her 
interpretation  of  the  award  does  not  affect  the  rights 
of  Costa  Rica. 

It  is  positive  that  said  interpretation  inflicts  a 
severe  wound  to  the  rights  of  Costa  Rica,  as  it  will 
be  clearly  demonstrated. 

Let  it  be  supposed  that  the  river  frontier  of  Costa 
Rica  would  be  Taura  in  place  of  river  San  Juan; 
Costa  Rica  would  receive  in  this  case  six  kilometers 
of  the  margin  of  an  useless  stream,  without  passage 
to  the  sea  during  a  great  part  of  the  year,  and  with 
access  to  an  unhospitable  coast  during  the  balance 
of  the  time,  being  always  unnavigable;  that  is  what 
Costa  Rica  would  receive  in  exchange  for  eleven 
kilometers  on  the  right  margin  of  the  river  San  Juan, 
of  which  she  would  be  deprived. 

In  the  before  stated  supposition  Costa  Rica 
would  be  furthermore  deprived  of  twenty  eight  square 
kilometers  of  territory,  including  the  coast  of  Harbour 
Head,  of  the  whole  of  the  Punta  de  Castilla.  which 
will  be  the  possible  site  for  a  future  population, 
when  the  time  comes  for  the  excavation  of  the  Cen- 
tral American  Canal. 

Under  the  same  supposition  the  ownership  in 
common  of  the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del  Norte  would  be 
of  no  benefit  for  Costa  Rica  if  said  Bay  was  to  be 
*  considered  as  foreign  territory. 

Finally  under  the  objected  supposittion  the  per- 
petual right  to  free  navigation  on  the  river  San  Juan, 
.recognized  in  favour  of  Costa  Rica,  would  be  annulled, 


because  Costa  Rica  has  the  said  right  of  navigation 
but  only  on  the  waters,  on  which  she  is  a  borde^ 
state. 

If  Costa  Rica  is  not  a  border  state  upon  the  San 
Juan,  but  upon  the  Taura,  it  must  be  illogical  to 
grant  her  the  right  of  navigating  the  first  of  these 
rivers,  which  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  boundaries 
is  not  San  Juan,  according  to  the  Nicaraguan  Com- 
mission. 

The  refuted  interpretation  is  in  principle  unsound 
and  should  it  be  admitted,  its  effects  would  be  simply- 
unbearable. 

The  Nicaraguan  Commission  States  that  Costa 
Rica  refuses  the  Taura  line  without  alleging  any 
reasons  nor  showing  any  document  in  support  of  her 
refusal. 

A  large  part  of  what  is  stated  is  true,  because 
really  the  Costa  Rica  Commission  in  the  several 
conferences  on  the  subject  never  uttered  a  word  in 
refutation  of  the  Taura  line. 

Does  the  Arbitrator  know  why? 

Because  neither  in  the  said  conferences  nor  in 
any  other  official  or  private  oportunity,  either  by  the 
Commission  of  Nicaragua  or  by  any  of  its  members, 
was  ever  mentioned  the  idea  ot  making  the  demarca- 
tion of  the  frontier  by  following  the  Taura  branch. 

The  Commission  of  Costa  Rica  sincerely  believes, 
that  the  idea  of  the  Taura  was  craddled  by  the  Nica- 
raguan Commission  and  that  it  was  borne  some  time 
after  the  date  of  the  last   conference,  because  other- 


wise  the  absolute  silence  of  the  Nicaraguan  Com- 
mission regarding  such  an  important  matter  could  not 
be  explainable. 

The  Commission  of  Costa  Rica  was  under  the 
impression  that  the  line  advocated  by  Nicaragua  was- 
the  one  of  Harbour  Head,  because  it  was  in  due  time- 
although  without  sucess,  proposed  by  the  Nicaraguan 
Minister  before  the  Arbitrator  Mr.  Cleveland,  and  it 
is  under  this  aprehension  and  under  this  basis,  that' 
the  Costa  Rica    Commission  wrote  its  allegation. 

The  new  point  of  view  adopted  by  the  Nicara- 
guan Commission  was  quite  a  surprise  to  Costa  Rica. 
That  is  the  reason  why  there  is  a  want  of  congruency 
between  this  and  the  former  allegation.  Said  con- 
gruency would  not  be  lacking  had  the  point  in  debate 
been  previously  set  in  writing. 

Let  the  Costa  Rica  Commission  be  acquitted 
of  the  before  mentioned  incongruency  which  it  has 
tried  to  correct  as  far  as  possible  in  this  above  state*- 
ment. 

J) 

The  Nicaraguan  Commission  classifies  as  ima- 
ginary the  frontier  as  Costa  Rica  pretends  that  it  is 
to  be  marked  out;  it  is  further  said,  that  the  fron- 
tier is  capricious,  that  it  is  based  on  disqualified' 
calculations  and  refers  to  places  by  nature  changeable 
and  of  no  stability. 

This  is  but  a  heap  of  unfounded  assertions. 

The  Costa- Rican  Commission  has  mathematica- 
lly demonstrated  which  must  be  the  point,  where  the- 
first  landmark  is  to  be  constructed  in  fixing  the  divir- 


•>  r     

JO 

ding  line.  This  point  corresponds  exactly  to  the  site, 
where  was  located  on  15th  April  1858  the  extremity 
of  Punta  de  Castilla  on  the  mouth  of  the  river  San 
Juan  de  Nicaragua.  The  dividing  line  stops  there, 
because  over  the  bay  of  San  Juan,  common  to  both 
Repubhcs  there  is  no  need  of  making  any  demarcation. 

The  second  point  of  the  frontier  was  marked  by 
the  Costa-Rica  Commission  in  the  place  where  the 
right  margin  of  the  river  under  the  above  cited  treaty 
date,  according  to  the  most  reliable  documents  at  ■ 
disposal,  was  traceable,  on  account  of  the  well  defi- 
ned bed  and  borders  of  the  river. 

This  demarcation  does  not  deserve  the  name  of 
imaginary  and  capricious. 

The    Commission   of  Nicaragua   further  states, 
that  the  line  is  based  upon  disqualified   calculations. 
It  is   scarcely   possible   to  venture   such  an   opinion  - 
about  unknown  calculations. 

The  Nicaragua  Commission,  ought  to  disclose 
the  errors  affecting  the  calculations  and  demonstrate 
them,  before  going  into  an  unmeditated  criticism. 

That  the  places  are  by  nature  changeable  and  of 
no  stabilHty,  even  in  the  case  that  this  would  be  true 
it  does  not  affect  in  any  shape  the  exactness  of  the 
survey.  This  circumstance  would  only  show  the  con- 
venience that  both  Governments  through  the  corres- 
ponding negociations  would  agree  upon  the  impro- 
vement of  the  line  in  search  of  more  adequate  places 
to  serve  as  frontier  on  account  of  their  firmness  and 
stability. 


—  36  — 

k) 

It  has  been  demonstrated  before,  that  the  Trea- 
ty of  Limits  did  not  define  what  was  to  be  un- 
derstood by  Punta  de  Castilla,  but  for  one  single 
purpose, — and  for  the  time  that  the  provisory  regime 
of  the  agreed  community  would  last.  It  has  been 
equally  seen  that  according  to  the  Treaty,  Punta  de 
Castilla  reaches  the  mouth  of  the  San  Juan  river. 
It  only  remains  to  demonstrate  that  the  names  Punta 
•de  Castilla  and  Punta  Arenas  are  synonymous  terms, 
names  given  to  the  same  thing,  to  the  sand  tongue 
that  separates  the  sea  from  the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del 
Norte. 

The  demonstration  is  easy.  These  are  the  proofs. 

The  following  paragraphs  are  extracted  from  the 
work  entitled.  "Walker  en  Centro  America"  written 
by  Lorenzo  Montufar,  Guatemala  1887. 

"Page  782. — It  was  about  4  a.  m.  when  Spen-, 
ser,  Maximo  Blanco   and    Francisco   Alvarado   with 

fourty  five  men  arrived  at    Punta   de  Castilla 

"The  barge  crew  returned  on  board  and  Scott  started 
to  arm  the  Agents  of  the  Company  and  all  the  friends 
of  it  for  the  purpose  of  regaining  the  steamers." 

"Page  783. — At  II  a.  m.  two  of  the  gun-boats 
of  the  English  flotilla  were  detached,  approached  Pun- 
ta de  Castilla  and   aimed   at   the  steamers   and    the 

houses  of  the  Company The  inhabitants  of  San 

Juan  del  Norte,  who  for  two  months  did  not  come  to 
La  Punta,  hastened  to  welcome  joyfully   the    Costa- 

Ricans,  offering  them   food   and  refreshments 

In  this  manner  the    Costa-Rican   flaa:   was    unfolded 


and  hanged  over  Punta  de  Castilla,  accompanied  by 
the  surprise  and  admiration  of  the  people  of  San 
Juan  del  Norte,  who  at  the  begining  could  not 
account  for  the  expeditionists'  presence  in  that  place." 

"Page  835. — An  officer  of  the  English  squadron 

came   immediately    on   board just  in   reaching 

Punta  de  Castilla  the  armed  boats  of  the  squadron  of 

Her  British  Majesty  surrounded   me   " In  this 

manner  we  passed  the  Punta  without  calling  at  them 
and  we  proceeded  to  the  beach  of  San  Juan  del  Nor- 
te, where  the  steamer  Claiton  was  at  anchor.  I  boar- 
ded her  at  2  p.  m.  and  made  the  declaration  of  cap- 
ture under   the    Costa-Rican  arms I   anchored 

in  front  of  San  Juan." 

"Page  836. — Yesterday  afternoon  all  the  filibus- 
ters 350  more  or  less  who  were  in  Punta  de  Castilla, 
were  transferred  from  the  small  steamer  Claiton  to  the 
English  war-ships  Cossack  and  Tartar." 

"Page  837. — Mr.  ]os6  N.  Scott  will  permit  that 
no  portion  of  the  property  actually  in  Punta  de  Cas- 
tilla, will  be  used  in  preparing  or  getting  ready  any 
boats  for  unlawful  purposes  against  the  allied  States  of 
Central  America  under  the  penalty  that  all  property 
will  be  delivered  to  the  state  of  Costa-Rica." 

The  inserted  paragraphs  refer  to  the  steamers 
and  the  seizing  of  Pimta  dc  Castilla  effected  by  the 
Costa-Rican  forces  diu-ing  the  campaign  against  the 
filibuster  Walker.  Mr.  John  Erskine  Captain  of 
Her  British  Magesty's  ship  Orion  says  in  his  relation 
that  these  operations  took  place  in  Punta  Arenas  or 
Arenas  Point. 


-  38  - 

The  following  paragraph  belongs  to  the  same 
work: 

"Page  1007. -On  the  24th  of  November,  between 
10  and  II  a.  m.  a  steamer  was  sighted  steering  to 
San  Juan  del  Norte:  on  approaching  she  changed 
her  route  and  directed  to  the  mouth  of  Colorado,  one 
of  the  branches  of  the  river  San  Juan  who  empties 
into  the  Atlantic.  The  Commander  of  the  war-ship 
Saratoga  who  from  the  deck  had  thought  to  recog- 
'  nize  the  steamer  Tennesee,  inmediately  sent  notice  to 
Lieutenant  Colonel  Jose  Baldison,  who  commanded 
the  Costa-Rican  forces  encamped  at  Punta  de  Cas- 
tilla,  explaining  to  him  that  said  ship  was  chartered 
by  Walker  in  New  Orleans;  the  Commander  of  Pun- 
ta Castilla  gave  notice  of  the  event  to  the  military 
chief  in  charge  of  Castillo  Viejo  and  sent  at  the  same 
time  a  detailed  relation  to  the  Government  of  Costa 
Rica." 

"Page  1008. — All  the  prisoners  where  afterwards 
transferred  to  the  Morgan  and  sent  to  Punta  Castilla, 
where  they  arrived  on  December  the  8th.  The  stea- 
mer Fashion  entered  by  Punta  Castilla,  anchored  in 
front  of  the  Company  house  by  daybreak  on  the  25th 
of  November." 

"Page  1009. — At  the  same  time  four  canon 
launches  anchored  at  Punta  Castilla." 

The  foregoing  paragraphs  refer  to  the  second 
invasion  of  Walker  and  the  capti:re  by  Comodore 
Pauling.  In  the  report,  that  he  made  about  this  no- 
table encounter  he  gives  Punta  de  Castilla  the  name 
of  Punta  Arenas  (Arena  Point). 

There  exists   an   authority   the    Commission   of 


—  39  — 

Nicaragua  can  not  gainsay,  Mr.  E.  G.  Squier,  ex- 
eharge  d'affairs  of  the  United  States  to  the  Central 
American  Republics.  This  author  in  his  above  cited 
work  espresses  himself  thus:  "On  the  South  the  line 
of  separation  from  Costa-Rica,  as  fixed  by  a  conven- 
tion dated  April  15th  1858,  starts  from  Punta  de  Cas- 
tilla  or  Punta  Arenas  on  the  south  shore  of  the  har- 
bour of  San  Juan  and  thence  follows  the  right  bank 
of  the  river  San  Juan." 

Farther  can  be  cited  another  literary  work,  whose 
authority  not  even  the  Nicaraguan  Commission  can 
disown,  namely  la  Historia  de  Nicaragua  desde 
los  tiempos  prehistoricos  hasta  i860  por  J.  Dolores 
Gamez,  Nicaragua  1889.  In  the  relation  of  the  second 
invasion  of  Walker,  he  gives  in  Chapter  XXVIII 
the  site,  where  the  principal  events  took  place, 
and  in  mentioning  the  defense  presented  by  como- 
dor  Pauling  for  his  capture  of  Walker  thereby  excee- 
ding his  instrucions,the  comodore  Pauling  wrote  Pun- 
tarenas;  there  is  a  clause  and  the  corresponding 
note  saying:  This  name  is  also  given  to  the  Punta  de 
Castilla  ( N.  del  A.). 

From  the  cited  documents  results  another  true 
fact,  and  it  is  this,  that  the  name  of  Punta  Castilla, 
is  not  of  recent  origin  as  the  Nicaragua  Commission 
affirms  and  that  it  was  already  in  common  use  before 
the  Treaty  of  Limits.  In  the  same  manner  as  San 
Juan  del  Norte  has  had  and  has  two  names,  namely 
the  already  cited  and  the  name  of  Greytown,  so  Pun- 
tarenas  and  Punta  de  Castilla  are  different  denomi- 
nations for  the  same  place. 

The  Nicaraguan  Commission  undervalues  Punta 


—  40  — 

de  Arenas  or  Punta  de  Castilla,  calling  it  an  imper- 
ceptible point.  (Vide  Statement  of  Nicaragua  page 
23-lines  14  and  15). 

The  Minister  of  Nicaragua  in  Washigton,  in  the 
allegation  brought  before  Mr.  Cleveland  under  date 
2nd  December  1887,  gave  to  that  mole  of  sand  the 
extent  of  3  miles. 

Without  attempting  now  a  direct  reply  to  that  state- 
ment, it  will  by  the  way  be  remarked  that  the  Tran- 
sit accessory  Company  for  a  long  time  had  their 
wharves,  storehouses  offices  and  adjoining  buildings 
in  Punta  Arenas  or  Punta  de  Castilla  and  that  the 
same  Company  entertained  the  project  of  building 
there  a  town;  it  was  in  Punta  Arenas  or  Punta  de 
Castilla  that  Walker  landed  the  soldiers  and  ammu- 
nitions of  his  second  invasion,  and  Costa- Rica  kept 
there  for  a  long  time  the  general  Headquarters  com- 
manding San  Juan  del  Norte.  For  all  these  purjDO- 
ses  it  was  required  that  Punta  de  Castilla  would  be, 
as  it  is,  more  than  an  imperceptible  point. 

/; 

Once  known  the  history  of  San  Juan  del  Norte 
or  Greytown  on  one  hand,  and  the  history  of  Punta 
de  Arenas  or  Punta  de  Castilla  on  the  other,  it  de- 
monstrates distinctly  the  motive  of  Article  5th  of 
the  Treat) ,  which  grants  Nicaragua  exemption  of 
port-duties  in  Punta  de  Castilla. 

From  the  ist  of  January  1848  date  of  the  occu- 
pation of  the  Mosquito  King  to  the  28th  of  January 
i860,   date  of  the  Treaty  Zeledon-Wike,  entered  into 


—  41  — 

between  Nicaragua  and  Great  Britain,  San  Juan  del 
Norte  or  Grey  town  was  out  of  the  rule  of  Nicara- 
gua. During  that  length  of  time  the  trade  of  Nica- 
ragua, via  San  Juan,  was  carried  on  through  Punta 
de  Castilla. 

When  the  Treaty  of  limits  was  signed,  on  the 
15th  of  April  1858,  Nicaragua  had  not  yed  reco- 
vered the  possession  of  the  harbour  or  port  of  San 
Juan;  therefrom  came  the  necessity  of  stipulating  the 
exemption  of  port-duties  in  Punta  de  Castilla,  of 
which  exemption  Nicaragua  enjoyed,  until  she  regai- 
ned the  possession  of  San  Juan  del  Norte,  by  virtue 
of  the  Zeledon-Wike  Treaty. 

After  what  has  been  said  the  before  mentioned 
exemption,  does  not  show  any  absurdity,  notwiths- 
tanding that  Punta  de  Arenas  or  Punta  de  Castilla 
be  inside  the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del  Norte. 

//; 

It  is  moreover  argued  by  the  Commission  of 
Nicaragua  that  the  dividing  line  proposed  by  Costa- 
Rica  cannot  be  accepted  without  violating,  by  the 
same  proposal  the  Treaty  of  Limits,  because  this 
line  would  divide  in  two  portions  the  waters  of  the 
Bay:  one  portion  for  Nicaragua  and  the  other  for 
Costa  Rica. 

The  argument  would  have  some  strength  in  case 
the  contemplation  was  to  draw  the  dividing  line  over 
the  waters  owned  in  common;  but  the  reverse  has 
ben  clearly  put  forth.  It  has  been  maintained  by  Cos- 
ta Rica,  that  there  is  no  need  of  drawing  any  limit 


42 


over  the  waters  of  the  bay,  b  ecause  said  waters  have 
been,  are  actually  and  shall  continue  to  be  owned  in 
common  by  both  Republics,  to  such  extent  that  the 
ships  of  any  one  of  them  can  navigate  with  her  own 
flag  and  pavillion  in  any  part  of  the  Bay  as  inside  the 
territorial  waters  of  either  state.  Consequently  the 
viol  ation  of  the  Treaty  is  merely  fanciful. 

f?i ) 

The  Nicaraguan  Commission  further  remarks  that 
if  adopted  the  starting  point  designed  by  Costa  Rica 
for  the  demarcation  of  the  frontier,  it  would  show  a 
break  of  continuity. 

The  fact  is  true,  but  the  reason  is  to  be  found  in, 
and  comes  out  from,  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty 
of  limits,  which  rules  not  to  divide  the  waters  of 
the  Bay:  it  did  not  allot  any  definite  portion  either 
to  Nicaragua  or  Costa  Rica,  but  clearly  adopted  the 
regime  of  community  of  said  waters. 

By  the  Treaty  of  Limits  there  was  created  into 
the  exclusive  territories  of  Costa  Rica  and  Nica- 
ragua another  territory  or  bulk  of  territorial  waters? 
to  be  owned  in  common  by  both  Republics.  The 
Commission  of  Costa  Rica  consequently  pays  faithful 
and  due  respect  to  the  stipulations  of  the  Treaty  of 
15th  April  1858,  by  admiting  a  break  of  continuity  in 
the  proposed  dividing  line. 

nj 

That  Nicaragua  has  the  eminent  domain  and 
supreme  control  over  the  waters  of  the  river  San 
Juar.,   this   is   an   assertion  not   questioned  by   any. 


But  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  said  eminent  do- 
main and  supreme  control  are  not  absolute,  because 
they  are  conditioned  by  the  real  right  or  perpetual 
international  service  of  free  navigation  agreed  to  in 
favour  ot  Costa  Rica.  There  is  no  need  of  going  any 
further  into  this  subject,  as  it  is  not  included  in  the 
present  contention. 

It  is  not  either  a  subject  of  the  actual  allegations 
the  clause  concerning  the  community  of  the  waters 
of  the  Bay  of  San  Juan;  but  as  Nicaragua  mentions 
her  eminent  domain  and  supreme  control  over  both 
waters,  the  Costa  Rica  Commission  deems  advisable 
to  state,  by  the  way,  the  following  rectification: 

When  in  a  Treaty  of  boundary,  entered  into  with 
the  purpose  of  definitely  settling  all  territorial  claims 
between  the  confining  countries,  after  having  clearly 
stated  what  is  proper  and  exclusive  of  either  country, 
it  is  further  agreed  that  such  sections,  before  in  dis- 
pute, will  be  owned  in  common  and  that  to  both 
countries  belongs,  as  consequenceof  this  community, 
the  enjoyment  of  its  advantages  and  the  defraying  of 
the  expenses  of  its  keeping,  there  is  nobody  who  does 
not  understand  that  the  community  is  not  contempla- 
ted merely  in  regard  to  the  use,  but  also  to  the 
ownership  and  sovereignty  in  terms  of  perfect  equality 
for  both  of  the  contracting  parties. 

If  the  intention  of  the  Treaty  was  to  state  that 
the  Bay  of  San  Juan  del  Norte  belonged  to  Nicara- 
gua in  respect  to  ownership,  and  that  Costa- Rica 
had  only  the  right  of  using  the  said  Bay,  nothing 
could  have  hindered  the  clear  and  adequate  wording 
of  that  intention,  as  it  was  clearly  and  unequivocally 


—  44  — 

worded  the  different  extent  of  the  rights  of  either 
RepubHc  to  the  waters  of  the  river  San  Juan. 

The  Dictionary  of  the  Spanish  language  in  defi- 
ning the  word  common  reads  thus:  what  not  being 
exclusively  owned  by  anybody  belongs  or  extends  to 
several:  wherefrom  the  party  holding  a  portion  of 
landed  property  in  community  with  another,  is  called 
cojHUJiero,  joint  holder. 

Should  the  word  imply  occassional  different 
rights,  that  is  to  say,  of  use  in  some  cases  and  of 
ownership  in  others,  the  reason  is  not  apparent  why 
it  ought  to  be  ruled  that  the  use  pertains  to  Costa- 
Rica  and  the  ownership  to  Nicaragua,  when  the  re- 
verse could  be  just  as  well.  It  is  not  found  neither 
in  the  Treaty  nor  in  the  award  any  motive  to  infer 
that  in  the  community  agreed  between  Costa-Rica 
and  Nicaragua  the  majestic  roll  of  the  lion  is  to  be 
played  by  the  latter  and  the  humble  one  of  the  lamb 
by  the  former. 


CONCLUSION 

The  Costa  Rica  commi.ssion  believes,  that  it  has 
plainly  refuted  all  the  arguments  contained  in  the  ex- 
position of  Nicaragua  to  which  this  reply  is  intented. 

The  Nicaragua  Commission  has  said,  that  the 
river  Colorado,  the  river  Taura  and  the  river,  that 
empties  directly  in  the  bay  of  San  Juan  del  Norte, 
(not  one  of  themparticulary),  constitute  the  river  San 
Juan  in  the  Treaty  of  1858,  and  it  has  by  indisputa- 
ble documents   been  demonstrated,  that  by  the  river 


-  45  — 

San  Juan  is  understood  the  nameless  branch  to 
which  Nicaragua  refers  with  the  circumscription:  "the 
one  that  deposits  its  water  in  the  Bay  of  San  Juan." 

The  Nicaragua  Commission  has  expressed  the 
opinion  that  Taura  empties  into  the  sea  at  the  ex- 
treme end  of  Pnnta  Castilla,  and  it  has  been  clearly 
demonstrated,  that  it  is  not  true;  because  the  central 
part  of  a  line  can  never  be  converted  into  the  extre- 
mity of  the  same  line. 

The  Nicaragua  Commission  has  declared,  that 
the  arbitration  sentence  annulled  the  line  defended 
by  Costa  Rica,  and  it  has  been  proved,  that  in  spite 
of  all  arguments  made  to  obtain  the  removal  of  the 
boundary  line  to  Colorado  or  to  Harbour  Head  as 
an  ultimatum,  the  award  maintained  firmly  and  inal- 
terably  the  original  divisional  line  of  the  Treaty 
of  1858. 

The  Nicaragua  Commission  contended,  that  Ni- 
caragua holds  the  eminent  dominion  and  supreme 
command  over  the  waters  of  the  river  San  Juan  and 
the  Bay  of  the  same  name,  and  the  distinction  was 
made  evident,  which  the  Treaty  of  1858  established 
between  the  rights  of  Nicaragua  in  the  several  wa- 
ters, of  a  limited  dominion  in  the  river  and  the  sove- 
reignty in  common  in  the  Bay. 

The  Nicaragua  commission  pretended  that  the 
Punta  de  Castilla  of  the  Treaty  of  Limits  is  not  the 
Punta  de  Arenas  of  the  Bay  of  San  Juan,  and  the 
error  of  such  negation  has  been  fully  disclosed. 

It  was  said  that  if  the  demarcation  was  to  be 
made  according  to  the  proposal  of  Costa  Rica  the 
consequence   would   be   to   invalidate  the  Treaty  of 


-  46  - 

Limits  and  that  there  would  be  a  break  of  continui- 
ty in  the  dividing  hne;  it  is  plainly  evidenced  that  it 
is  compulsory  to  act  according  to  the  text  of  said 
Treaty  and  that  with  the  before  mentioned  line  far 
from  impairing  the  Treaty,  its  due  and  proper  obser- 
vance is  secured. 

Not  one  of  the  inferences  of  Nicaragua  re- 
mains integer  and  upright:  none  of  its  arguments  has 
victoriously  undergone  the  test,  while  the  deductions 
of  the  Commission  of  Costa  Rica,  in  consequence  of 
the  debate,  remain  solid,  and  resting  upon  unmovable 
foundations. 

The  Costa  Rica  commission  confidently  expects 
that  this  will  be  the  opinion  of  the  learned  arbitrator 
whose  impartial  and  just  decision  will  forever  close 
the  actual  regrettable  dispute  about  the  intelligence 
of  points  which  for  Costa  Rica  are  set  forth  in  a  gla- 
ring dazzling  light. 

San  Jose,  30th  June  1897. 

Ltiis  Matamoros 

Leonidas  Carranza 


AJl^lVi^ic.s-!Ty  OF  CALIFORNIA 
SANTA  BARBAfiA 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Jffl^^y^*    ^ 


20jn-8, '61  (0208484)476 


3  1205  02531  4509 


SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  935  044    8 


